Welcome to FinHeaven Fans Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd
like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our
other members.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If you are a member in good standing, then you can navigate to the 2015 Miami Dolphins Media Guide from the navigation bar at the top of the forums. Also, in the sticky section of the main forum, there is a link to vote on your top 50 dolphins players of all time.

NDAA: The Biggest Election Issue No One's Talking About

You don't have to live alone in the woods, reading issues of Guns and Ammo and co-writing your manifesto with beard lice, to be terrified about the state of basic freedoms in America today. Given the counterterrorism provisions in the fairly recent National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA), we currently live in a country where the government can pick up American citizens and detain them indefinitely without access to a lawyer or even a criminal trial. That means locked up forever without even the basic protections we afford to rapists and murderers.

"That can't be right," you say. "Such a power would be completely unconstitutional!"

And you're right. Even President Obama said he had "serious reservations with certain provisions [of the bill] that regulate the detention, interrogation and prosecution of suspected terrorists." And then he signed it.

Getty

"I'll sign my name, but I'm not gonna draw a smiley face in the O like usual."

But the point is not just to beat up on the president. After all, Governor Romney did that for 90 minutes in last Wednesday's debate without a single mention of these NDAA provisions. That's because the NDAA will persist under a Romney administration as well. That's right: Regardless of who wins in November, your lingering notions of living in a country that is free and democratic can best be described as "quaint" and "wrong."

So considering that this law alters our concept of what it even means to live in a democracy, why is no one talking about it? Why does no one seem to care? There are three major reasons, but first, let's talk about what the NDAA is.

What Is the NDAA?

The primary role of the NDAA is to provide for the Defense Department's budget, which this year amounts to a cozy $662 billion. However, the NDAA also contains counterterrorism provisions in sections 1021 and 1022 that allow the federal government to imprison any person "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaida, the Taliban or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners" until "the end of the hostilities."

Did that clear it up for you? No? See, that's part of the problem. The NDAA is so poorly defined that it becomes a bit of an inkblot test for its possible effect. But the thing is, when it comes to basic, constitutionally protected, fundamental freedoms, we typically don't take an "Ahh, y'know what I mean" approach. What we do know is, pursuant to the NDAA, American citizens on American soil can be jailed indefinitely without the right to legal counsel if suspected of being a terrorist. And as Senator Rand Paul has pointed out, there are already all sorts of things on the books that can make you a suspect, such as missing fingers or having more than a week's worth of food in your house.

So, here we are in a tight election, and none of the candidates or pundits are talking about the one issue that's at the heart of the role of government and our rights as citizens. Why?

A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

The law has been back and fourth in the courts with Obama and company vigorously defending and appealing it. Not really a "conservative" thing when it was Obama himself who requested it.

What do you mean, request? My understanding is he signed it reluctantly.

Anyway, I don't like the provision. At all. I made that clear.

But the fate of the law now lies primarily with the courts. Different lines of judicial thought are a relevant part of this discussion and one I was trying to engender, rather than just focusing on "woe is us with these politicians" kinds of commentary.

What do you mean, request? My understanding is he signed it reluctantly.

Anyway, I don't like the provision. At all. I made that clear.

But the fate of the law now lies primarily with the courts. Different lines of judicial thought are a relevant part of this discussion and one I was trying to engender, rather than just focusing on "woe is us with these politicians" kinds of commentary.

According to Carl Levin in the youtube video above. It was Obama himself who requested the law. The reluctance part was political drama.

Re: NDAA: The Biggest Election Issue No One's Talking About

Originally Posted by TheWalrus

A horrible law. Has anyone actually been detained under it yet? An article I found from May says no one had yet.

Should be interesting (and very important, obviously) to see how all the legal challenges end up. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court (and conservative judges in general) usually side with law enforcement on these kinds of issues, but it's hard to imagine that such a threat to due process and liberty could fall under anything but a strict scrutiny test, which this law would obviously fail, imo.

I don't even think that it can be tried for constitutionality until someone is arrested under it. Sounds like a little WMD to keep hidden until Marshall Law is enacted. I'm with you...it is disgusting!